I just saw this too, when looking back for your links.
But yes, the game map is demonstrably inaccurate to how the stars are actually positioned in the sky.
The map is “useful” but not accurate.
Are you using abstract mode?
Is that even still a thing?
Can we still use the old map? lol
Anyhow, I gotta go.
Things to think about. 
1 Like
This is constellation Onirvura from Jita, how it looks in the actual sky followed by how it looks in the map. Notably different.
It’s recognizable but still, very different when talking about the scales of lightyears.
Constellation Onirvura from Jita
Constellation Onirvura in Map
1 Like
Regarding this image…
Where are these coordinates though? In the map? Or in the New Eden Sky?
Are. You. Using. Abstract. Mode?
1 Like
Ok so that solves ONE mystery, but doesn’t answer the question of actual distances…even if the distances are known in terms of coordinates in the map-space.
We don’t know what the units are…yet.
BUT - furthermore - I still suspect there are non-mapped stars in the starfield that are associated with the Background-skybox. And I suspect that these will not change relative perspective as you move through New Eden, and I suspect they are different for each Region.
Basing it off the Kimotoro Star Square
So I’ve triangulated the Badminton Nebula from 3 positions now, Josameto, Kisogo and Faurent and it definitely seems to be about here on the map AND seems to be consistent with very little deviation. Nothing so extreme as to break the illusion of realism.
Somewhere near Nakugard.
Nakugard - Seen from Suroken
Badminton Nebula no longer visible, so need to go back and approximate Nakugard’s location where Badminton is visible. Can always assume the nebula is just hidden by dust or such, that’s not a big issue.
Amazing, viewing a 3D object from a different perspective changes its appearance…
Think about what you are saying about the map looking wrong for a second here.
Then realise that almost certainly the map is not wrong
Nonono.
He was in abstract map mode, where the map does look wrong.
It’s for “readability”. Not sure there’s a word for that in the world of map related terms.
1 Like
Its used in world maps and atlases.
But I cant remeber the term
1 Like
Thanks!
Sadly I*m out of Likes again today.
1 Like
Something here maybe;
Or just Projection?
…
Da fuc happened to the link?
1 Like
Yes! Of course!
Damn.
lol
2 Likes
Ah ha had it all along, thought you are after a specific type.
Cool, another groovy mystery solved.
1 Like
Mercator projection is the one that mapmakers have historically tended to use, it does distort stuff though.
Accurately mapping 3 dimensional stuff onto a 2 dimensional plane isn’t easy.
1 Like
I was gonna say Mercator Projection but afaik that only works with globes specifically
2 Likes
Yep it’s for globes, up until fairly recently that’s all we needed to map.
I’m not sure what they use to map space itself; the space pope would probably know.
1 Like
I totally have to nitpick on this one.
That’s inaccurate. It depends on the medium.
3D Projection is incredibly easy and straight forward. One division per coordinate.
On a screen, which is 2D, it’s damn easy to project 3D onto 2D and still being able to work with it.
The problem is the medium it’s being projected onto.
We can’t zoom “into” a piece of paper …
… and can only rotate it around a single axis while maintaining visual contact with the projected data.
That was totally unnecessary and I apologize.
1 Like
Shut up anderson 